Search results

PurposeCompanies are increasingly challenged by sustainability-related supply chain risks. Research has developed linking supply chain sustainability priorities, practices and triple bottom line performance; however, risk is rarely included in these models. The purpose of this paper is to understand the link between sustainable supply chain strategies, practices and performance, and to test the importance of risk management practices in this relationship focusing on the product category level.Design/methodology/approachThe paper includes a survey of supply managers in four countries with 305 responses, with a focus on upstream supply chain strategies at the product category level.FindingsThe environmental and social sustainability strategies lead to sustainable supply sustainable performance, through focused practices in either area, but the effect on operational and cost performance is not significant. Social supply chain strategies positively impact environmental and cost performance when mediated by risk assessment practices.Originality/valueThis paper shows a more nuanced view of the impact of supply chain practices on the strategy–performance link. It is one of the first papers to empirically test the role of risk practices in sustainable supply chain management and emphasize the importance of alignment across the main dimensions of sustainability to achieve positive sustainable performance outcomes, but not necessarily cost and operational performance. Unlike other studies, social sustainability priorities may positively impact environmental and social performance and is linked to cost advantage when implemented with risk assessment practices.

International audience ; The article focuses on a research which is aimed at outlining the development of end-of-life vehicle network management in Great Britain from the early 1990s to mid-2006. The research measures the developments over a decade-and-a-half from the development of a voluntary scheme to a legislated regime for recovering end-of-life vehicles with the goal of reducing landfill waste. In addition, the research assesses the management implications, including economic implications and industrial responses, of a voluntary versus legislated approach, regarding the legitimacy and competitiveness drivers within vehicle manufacturers and service providers.

International audience ; The article focuses on a research which is aimed at outlining the development of end-of-life vehicle network management in Great Britain from the early 1990s to mid-2006. The research measures the developments over a decade-and-a-half from the development of a voluntary scheme to a legislated regime for recovering end-of-life vehicles with the goal of reducing landfill waste. In addition, the research assesses the management implications, including economic implications and industrial responses, of a voluntary versus legislated approach, regarding the legitimacy and competitiveness drivers within vehicle manufacturers and service providers.

It is now becoming apparent that the prevalent "stock‐push" approach in the automotive industry of building vehicles against a long‐term forecast and fulfilling the large majority of orders from existing stock is no longer a viable proposition. Pressure from rising stock levels in the market and the discounts needed to sell these vehicles is forcing the vehicle manufacturers to rethink their sourcing strategy in favour of "build‐to‐order" systems. More responsive order fulfilment at vehicle manufacturer level however will have wide implications on the component supply and logistics subsystems. Based on findings of the 3DayCar research programme, this paper aims at assessing whether current logistics systems are capable of supporting such a "build‐to‐order" approach. Based on empirical evidence of benchmarks covering three million annual vehicle movements in the UK vehicle distribution system, key constraints in current vehicle distribution logistics will be established, and the cost and environmental impact of more responsive logistics will be assessed.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to challenge the common claim of "infinite variety" being demanded in the marketplace by measuring not just how much variety theoretically could be produced, but how much is actually demanded by the customer. To this effect, the authors propose and validate market‐based variety measures with empirical data and in a second step, extend their analysis by applying these measures and empirically testing the impact of variety mitigation strategies, such as postponement and options bundling.Design/methodology/approachThe authors analyse production and sales data of 226,106 passenger cars, comprising of three models of one vehicle manufacturer sold across four global market regions. The theoretical variety is compared with actual variety for each model‐market combination, and these data are linked to actual production and sales records.FindingsThe authors propose and validate product variety measures based on actual customer orders, and empirically demonstrate how these measures can be used to assess the impact of late configuration and option bundling strategies, and find that these are generally valid, but that their applicability is contingent upon the respective variety distribution profile.Research limitations/implicationsAnalyses are developed within the context of a single firm and industry, although an attempt was made to counter this weakness by considering models from the volume, niche and premium market segments.Practical implicationsThe paper highlights how actual variety differs from theoretical variety in practice, which in turn co‐determines the effectiveness of mitigation strategies applied by firms.Originality/valueThe paper's main contribution is to propose and empirically test a set of novel measures of product variety: the average repetition ratio and a specification Pareto curve, both of which complement and enhance one's understanding of product variety and its impact on manufacturing and distribution systems.

PurposeThis paper investigates the stalled adoption of a supplier park at Bridgend Engine Plant in the UK. It starts from the position that not all firms can or should implement the same set of practices.Design/methodology/approachCritical incident technique and semi‐structured interviews over five years were used to understand the influence of institutional and strategic choices during the implementation of a supplier park. A conceptual framework was developed to incorporate practices broadly associated with parks, i.e. improving supply stability, supply coordination, redefining the OEM/supplier boundary and enhancing interaction between co‐located firms.FindingsThe findings demonstrate a limited implementation of supply practices at Bridgend with only one component supplier brought onto the site. The original plan was to create a supplier park that would "grow" to an industrial park, creating an automotive sector in the area. However, a combination of operational, processual, and contextual factors have conspired against the plan.Research limitations/implicationsThe combination of a broad range of theoretical and practical elements means there are associated discussions that could be more fully explored. Condensing the interview notes has resulted in the researchers' own interpretation of events becoming a significant reality filter. Whilst single case studies raise inevitable concerns over comparability, our focus is on theoretical generalizability through richness of empirical data.Originality/valueAs firms continue to use best practice as a core ingredient of strategy, researchers must respond with robust theoretical concepts explaining adoption and implementation. This paper integrates disparate perspectives across multiple levels in order to build a richer and more believable picture of a stalled initiative. Three key conclusions can be drawn: the contingent nature of "bundles of practice" implications of political ambiguity over the efficiency argument and the effect of isomorphic or bandwagon responses by firms.

Purpose: This paper investigates the stalled adoption of a supplier park at Bridgend Engine Plant in the UK. It starts from the position that not all firms can or should implement the same set of practices. Design/methodology/approach: Critical incident technique and semi-structured interviews over five years were used to understand the influence of institutional and strategic choices during the implementation of a supplier park. A conceptual framework was developed to incorporate practices broadly associated with parks, i.e. improving supply stability, supply coordination, redefining the OEM/supplier boundary and enhancing interaction between co-located firms. Findings: The findings demonstrate a limited implementation of supply practices at Bridgend with only one component supplier brought onto the site. The original plan was to create a supplier park that would "grow" to an industrial park, creating an automotive sector in the area. However, a combination of operational, processual, and contextual factors have conspired against the plan. Research limitations/implications: The combination of a broad range of theoretical and practical elements means there are associated discussions that could be more fully explored. Condensing the interview notes has resulted in the researchers' own interpretation of events becoming a significant reality filter. Whilst single case studies raise inevitable concerns over comparability, our focus is on theoretical generalizability through richness of empirical data. Originality/value: As firms continue to use best practice as a core ingredient of strategy, researchers must respond with robust theoretical concepts explaining adoption and implementation. This paper integrates disparate perspectives across multiple levels in order to build a richer and more believable picture of a stalled initiative. Three key conclusions can be drawn: the contingent nature of "bundles of practice" implications of political ambiguity over the efficiency argument and the effect of isomorphic or bandwagon responses by firms. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited.